Daiichi-Sankyo: rep-created cost/profit spreadsheets for Olmetec deemed promotional and misleading (AUTH/1869/7/06)

📊

Key facts

⌄

Case	AUTH/1869/7/06
Complainant	Primary Care Trust Chief Pharmacist
Company	Daiichi-Sankyo UK Ltd
Product	Olmetec (olmesartan)
Material	Three cost-comparison spreadsheets titled “Cozaar”, “Aprovel”, “Diovan” including “cost benefit” and “profit per script” fields
Main issue	Spreadsheets went beyond an enquiry response; contained misleading “profit per script” for a non-dispensing practice; effectively uncertified promotional material without prescribing information
Breach clauses	Clause 7.2; Clause 15.2
No breach	Clause 9.2
Sanction	Undertaking received
Complaint received	19 July 2006
Case completed	2 October 2006
Appeal	No appeal
Applicable Code year	2006

Reviewed by Dr Anzal Qurbain (FFPM) — ABPI Final Signatory

🤖

Got a question about this case?

Ask one of our 13 specialist ABPI advisors — instant answers, 24/7.

Ask AskAnzal AI

🎬 Expert Video Walkthrough

🎬

Video walkthrough — coming for members

Subscribe now and get expert video analysis for every case as we publish them.

Subscribe — from £299/yr

📋

⌄

A Primary Care Trust chief pharmacist complained about three spreadsheets left/provided to a GP practice following a representative’s call.
The spreadsheets were handwritten-titled “Cozaar”, “Aprovel” and “Diovan” and compared costs of various antihypertensives, including Daiichi-Sankyo’s Olmetec (olmesartan) 10mg and 20mg.
Each sheet included a “cost benefit” box calculating “current cost”, “Sankyo cost” and “reduction in cost”.
The spreadsheets also included drug tariff reimbursement price, dispensing discount, wholesaler discount and a “profit per script” column (completed for all medicines listed).
A note stated the products listed did not necessarily reflect equivalent efficacy.
Daiichi-Sankyo argued the practice manager requested a cost comparison to help set up a practice formulary and that the information was provided in response to an individual enquiry (and was not intended for third parties).
The Panel considered the “individual enquiry” exemption (Clause 1.2) but noted it applies only to unsolicited enquiries and, in any event, the spreadsheets went beyond what was necessary for a non-dispensing practice.
The Panel found the representative had effectively produced her own promotional material, which was not certified and did not include prescribing information.

⚖️

⌄

Breach of Clause 7.2 ruled (misleading information: showing “profit per script” to a non-dispensing practice was misleading).
Breach of Clause 15.2 ruled (representative failed to comply with the Code by producing and supplying the spreadsheets).
No breach of Clause 9.2 (Panel said the Clause 15.2 ruling covered the situation).

🔒

Members get the complete breakdown — Clauses, Sanction, Signatory Lens, Audit checklist, and 3 Key Questions.

Best value

£249/year

Annual — save £99

£29/mo

Monthly

Join Now — Instant Access